The outlook for pay in the public sector is getting grimmer and grimmer. Britain has the second-highest budget deficit in the EU. That isn't just a temporary result of the recession; according to the IMF we have the second highest structural deficit in our fiscal primary balance of 22 developing countries, at a colossal 7.8% of our national income.

Action needs to be taken to curb that deficit; if whoever forms the government after the next election doesn't grasp the nettle there is every reason to think that we might lose our valuable AAA credit rating, the cost of borrowing will soar and we'll wind up in the vicious cycle of having to take ever more brutal action just to afford a rapidly rising cost of servicing the debt.

With taxes up in the decade before the crisis, the only options on the revenue front will be higher taxes on poor and middle-income families or trying to hit the rich, missing, and winding up with less revenue than you started with (as independentforecasters suggest is likely with the 50p rate). All the parties have now acknowledged that means spending cuts are necessary, though there is still a disagreement over how "savage" they will need to be.

While there will need to be cuts in a number of areas, it is difficult to imagine a credible plan that doesn't involve quite tough pay deals for public sector staff. Pay is just too large a component in public spending for it to be possible to restrain spending while giving the 6 million public sector workers generous rises. The government's previous limit of 2% or less is likely to be replaced, regardless of which party is in power, with freezes or minimal rises. That will be hard on plenty of public sector workers who did nothing to cause the fiscal crisis we are currently facing, but it is necessary to address a situation that threatens our economic future.

In that light, the most senior and well-remunerated staff in the public sector have to take a lead. Ordinary workers on low or middle incomes can't be made to feel that they are being forced to wear a hair shirt while their bosses continue to enjoy bumper pay rises. Unfortunately, new research that we at the Taxpayers' Alliance have released today shows that senior staff in the public sector are still enjoying far too generous treatment.

The Public Sector Rich List uses the "remuneration reports" that most companies and public sector bodies are required to publish (not councils, yet) to study staff in the public sector earning more than £150,000. It won't get anywhere near all the staff, as only directors are reported unless a freedom of information request has revealed details for some other staff. Jonathan Ross isn't in there for that reason; we just don't know how much he is being paid. Including all of the nationalised banks – from Northern Rock to RBS – only added 30 people to our list. Despite that, the list now includes 806 public sector workers earning more than £150,000. And between 2007-08 and 2008-09, with the financial crisis playing havoc and the British economy heading for recession, they enjoyed an average pay rise of around 5%, despite extremely well-paid bankers dragging that average down by having their remuneration cut.

There are some extremely hefty golden parachutes in our list. John Phillips, at Scottish Enterprise, took a salary of £93,000 but £260,100 in compensation for loss of office and £130,050 pay in lieu of notice. It is hard to see what value taxpayers get from paying someone, who is being kicked out of the door in a hurry, that kind of money, or writing a contract that offered such generosity to a departing director. Many of these deals look like stitch-ups, such as Sir Fred Goodwin's deal, where it is felt to be easier to quietly throw taxpayers' money at directors so they will leave without too much fuss.

There are some substantial bonuses as well even at the lower end of our list. For example, Michael Rea, executive director at the Carbon Trust, enjoyed a bonus of £42,612 on top of his salary of £119,950 and other benefits of £5,552. Many of these bonuses are tied to dubious measures of performance.

Big pay packets in the public sector can be justified. There are positions in the public services where getting the right person really can be worth offering handsome compensation. But there aren't shareholders to revolt if executive pay gets out of hand. The "shareholders" in public sector bodies are ordinary taxpayers.

That's why transparency is important so that the public can come to a view on whether these packages are appropriate. Too often, it is easier for politicians to acquiesce and get these well-connected names onside with a bumper pay rise instead of striking a tough deal for taxpayers – that is, if politicians even get involved in the first place. Pay is often decided by cosy little committees with little scrutiny. The BBC's remuneration committee is composed of as few as three people: the chairman, and two non-executive directors. They decide the pay for all the senior executives at the corporation except director-general Mark Thompson.

If the next government is serious about restoring the nation's finances to health, they have to tackle senior salaries. The best paid in the public sector need accept that tough pay deals now are a price they need to pay to show leadership and bring the public sector through the fiscal crisis.